Dr. PRESS. The administration deliberations are closely held, so I just don't know what the progress is and to what extent they are following these recommendations. I do know that the Corson report is being used in the administration deliberations as input to their discussions, but how the policy is evolving in the internal administration discussions is not known to me, nor to anyone else on the outside.

Dr. MAGRATH That's correct. We don't know what the answer is, in effect.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Dr. Magrath, in terms of the four criteria, are you satisfied that they are sufficient?

Dr. MAGRATH Yes, sir. I wouldn't presume to speak for individual faculty members at the University of Minnesota. I have been around too long to do that. But from my own perspective, because I know the authors of the report and what they intend, I can live with and see the reasonableness of those criteria. But to reemphasize, it's a gray area but it is not a big, broad gray area as it is stated. It is a very narrow gray area.

Dr. PRESS. And it is also a gray area that would require a dialog for 60 days but would not lead to a prohibition of publication. That's a key point.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Some critics of the Corson report say that the report in a sense asks the wrong questions or possibly assumes the wrong premises, insofar as it merely attempts to accommodate security concerns of the intelligence agencies and the military rather than the other concerns, such as preserving openness and traditional academic freedoms. Do you have any comment on that?

Dr. PRESS. Well, having spent 23-some-odd years in the university, and 4 years in the Government, I think I appreciate the concerns on both sides. I think, not because the Corson report comes from my own institution, but I think it was an extremely balanced statement, taking into account the legitimate concerns of both the Government and university community.

It is an eloquent statement of the need for open universities and free scientific communication, as eloquent as I have seen.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Others are concerned that the part of the Corson report in which it appears to premise the assessment of the nature of the problem is really based on a classified report, which is not made public. Apparently, the classified report proved that technology transfer was a significant problem, but insofar as this is not available for general review, can it have full credibility?

Dr. PRESS. Mr. Chairman, there was no classified report. The Corson report was the-well, let me see. I had better back off. There was▬▬

Mr. KASTENMEIER. I'm not talking about the report itself.

Dr. MAGRATH I think the reference is to some of the information that was made available to the Panel.

Dr. PRESS. Yes. Let me back off——

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Which in the beginning made its assessment of the nature of the problem.

Dr. PRESS. It has been a year or more and now it's coming back to me. A subcommittee of the Panel received briefings that were classified. These were briefings by the intelligence agencies about the kinds of damage that has occurred by American technology

showing up in Soviet military systems. These were briefings about the sources of this technology leakage-industry, espionage, thirdcountry transfers, universities, and so on.

As a result of those briefings, the subcommittee concluded that open scientific communication was not the source of this damaging technology transfer, but the sources were the other sectors that I described to you. There was a written statement that was classified that summarized those briefings.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. If that was the case-and for the record I'm arguing the point in the sense of trying to explore the situation— why would then conclusions be reached which would, say, be more permissive of the Government limiting universities when they are not the source of the problem? And maybe you don't read the Corson report that way.

Dr. PRESS. No. The proposals, the so-called limitations of universities, are no more severe than the universities impose upon themselves for such things as patent protection, and no more severe than the universities impose upon themselves in dealing with industrial sponsors of research. Universities insist that there not be an undue delay in publication, no more than 30 or 60 days. The universities insist that their openness-their teaching and freedom to communicate-not be compromised in their own privately sponsored research. The Corson Panel recommends limitations no more severe than that, and then only if very strict criteria apply. The Corson report recommends only a 60-day delay in publication so that the Government contracting officials can discuss particular paragraphs in a report with the researchers that they sponsor. The universities have the final right of decision in the recommendations. So, it is not a proposal for something that is extraordinary in academic life.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. What does it say with respect to the number of things that President Magrath detailed as problems for the scientific and academic community?

Dr. PRESS. I would say that as I listened to President Magrath's talk I could subscribe to just about everything he said. In fact, I can't think of a single exception, although I would like to read his statement over again. But I was just nodding my head all the time that he was making his presentation.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. The point is, there seems to be some slippage between what is actually happening in the country and, say, the Corson report, or that which is complained about.

Dr. PRESS. I see what you mean. The Corson report is a recommendation from a private sector organization, the National Academy of Sciences, to the Government. It is not a requirement on the Government by any stretch of the imagination. It has no force of authority. It is just a private organization's view, an organization with a traditional relationship to the Government, but these are policy recommendations that the Government can act on or not, as it sees fit.

The fact that there have been scientific meetings where papers were forced to be withdrawn, the fact that there have been a number of instances of the kind that you heard, concerning foreign students on the campuses, some instances even more severe than

what you just heard, these are ongoing problems that we have to address.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Is it not a concern to people in the administration that there is growing-perhaps hostility is an overstatement-but tension surely between the scientific and academic community and the regulations and other restrictions imposed by the administration on them? Are they not aware of it, or do they feel that the overriding need for national security considerations are such that they must proceed irrespective of the feelings of the community?

Dr. PRESS. It is very difficult for me to characterize the administration's concerns, especially when the discussions are private. But I would venture a guess that the senior administration officials in science and technology are very sympathetic with the Corson Panel report. The reason for that is that they understand the nature of scientific discovery and technological innovation. They know that once you start compartmentalizing science, then you start degrading scientific productivity. They don't want to see that happen-for the benefit of the country. So, by and large, I would say they are sympathetic.

I think the problems we have come from those in the administration who don't have such experience and who tend to lump basic science and advanced technological hardware together, without understanding that they are quite different.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Of course, it is not the scientific adviser or people that you referred to who are really in control in terms of regulations and directives that are issued.

Dr. PRESS. Having had that position, I would say that the Presidential science adviser is one of many voices and many different points of view that will be considered in the final decisionmaking process.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Dr. Magrath.

Dr. MAGRATH. Just a brief comment, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Press is much closer and far better qualified to answer the question that you posed to him, but my sense of it is that his comments are exactly accurate and that there are persons and voices within DOD and elsewhere within the Federal Government who are very sympathetic to the position that we are taking. But there are other voices and other points of view as well.

I would also like to say this is the Corson report and I did not serve on the Panel, although I believe I was invited to and couldn't. I believe that while I'm sure one can find points of difference here and there, I think we can study and discuss and debate these very difficult issues for many weeks and months and I don't think you will find a better statement of the problem, and a stronger affirmation of scientific and academic freedom, and a more sensible set of recommendations put together in a period of I think 3 or 4 months, by some very hard-working individuals, than in this document. It's as good a guideline I think as we could have, as Congress and you and others explore these very important issues.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Apparently it is not being followed, and our problems are that decisions are being made by others who do not give the highest priority to those considerations.

Dr. Press, were there similar problems in the Carter administration?

Dr. PRESS. Yes; there were. As I mentioned earlier, they began at the time of the Afghanistan invasion, when officials in Government :were seeking ways of applying pressure on the Soviet Government, of showing great dissatisfaction with that invasion.

Of course, the world was aghast at the invasion of Afghanistan and the Soviet Union was roundly condemned. On the other hand, I think again there were those in the last administration, as in the present administration, who, because of their experience and backgrounds, just didn't understand the great contribution to American life of freedom of communication for all fields, not just science. They were proposing all sorts of restrictions-stopping exchanges, examining international conferences in this country, and seeing whether or not papers should be withdrawn. The first restriction in recent years of papers presented at a scientific conference did occur in 1980.

So I guess it is the same mentality, the same point of view, that I see in the previous administration and now, although it may be, as Dr. Magrath says, that as tensions increase between the nations, there seems to be an acceleration of the type of restrictions that he referred to.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. One last question, and that really is on a balance. Because in the final analysis, whoever makes the decisions, the Congress participates in decisions that affect these series of questions. It will be a balance satisfying reasonable national security needs and also perpetuating the rights and the free expression and free ability of academics, of scientists and others, to pursue their work as they have traditionally in this country.

One of the difficulties is how to assess national security. I assume that there would be a debate on the definition of national security. Some people would feel it is not necessary to spend $1.8 trillion in 5 years to achieve national security. Therefore, I suspect all the way down the line we get such a diverse opinion as to what is national security, what is essential to national security, that I wonder whether we can achieve this balance that apparently is reflected in the Corson report, at least reflected in terms of the needs of the scientific community.

What comment would you have about how we might find the best balance in terms of public policy between the two competing considerations?

Dr. MAGRATH. Mr. Chairman, I will try a response. You have raised an extraordinarily important and perceptive question.

I think the answer has to come out of public debate and discussion and inquiry of the kind that your committee is undertaking in these hearings.

Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

Dr. Press, any further comment?

Dr. PRESS. I would say there are many aspects in a definition of national security beyond military strength, although I don't think we should in any way diminish our ability to protect ourselves. I think we have to define it in terms of economic growth in the country, of the cultural life in the country, the quality of life of our citizens, and the example we portray to other nations in the world.

Coming from the scientific area and the educational area, I happen to believe that these two fields have a great deal to do for our national security beyond our military strength. So I think we have to take a broad view of what constitutes national security.

Within this context, I think that any restriction of science, of the kind we have been speaking about, would start us down the road of losing our scientific preeminence in the world, which I think is a very important element of our future national military security, national economic security, and the cultural life of the Nation. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you.

Mr. Berman, any further questions?
Mr. BERMAN. Just a couple.

In your testimony, Dr. Press, this reference to the "dual use" capabilities, you site several instances where apparently there have been administration efforts to prevent certain unclassified research results from being presented at meetings attended by Russian scientists. I am just not informated at all on the nature of these and have no scientific background.

One of them is the Society of Photo-Optical Engineers in 1982. Somehow that strikes me as spy satellites or technology that might be used there. Am I just totally off base or is that——

Dr. PRESS. No. Photo-optical devices are a very important element of many different military systems. I am sure there is a legitimate need in certain areas of that technology, where the military application is obvious, to examine it from the point of view of classification.

But it is also a field that is extremely important in civil technologies, that are in use today such as optical communication systems-which replace copper with optical fibers-and the laser devices for phonograph playback and high-fidelity recordings. There are all sorts of new devices based upon photo-optical technologies. So it is a very big, economically important field, with some military applications.

If we are going to achieve commercial strength in this country in this very important field, we have to have open communication in scientific meetings. But again, I think if there is a case for classification, the rationale it should be made and should be made very clear and very specific, and people should know about it. Mr. BERMAN. But how do you make-

Dr. PRESS. When one organizes a scientific meeting and all of the papers are received, and they are all unclassified, and then 2 weeks before the meeting there is an order saying "These papers have to be withdrawn because you're liable for prosecution under the Export Administration regulations" that's not the way to have open scientific communication. It alienates the scientific community and it encourages international scientific bodies to have meetings outside the United States.

Mr. BERMAN. How do you-I'm asking these questions because I can think of people in this body whose initial reaction to this kind of discussion is, well, how do you know that the papers that are going to be delivered relating to the cutting edge of research in this area are, in fact-even though they're not done by the Department of Defense or under the sponsorship of the Department of Defense, and may be much more a product of academic or research or re